Safe Work Execution + Nudge Theory

Statistics show that the construction industry tends to have a larger
proportion of accidents in relation to the number of workers involved than many
other industries. Accidents tend to disrupt the orderly production process and
are costly. The "Domino Theory" proposed by W.H. Heinrich in the
1920s and modified by Frank Byrd in the 1970s indicates a series of events in a
chain reaction, where one event affects the next one until ending in an adverse
outcome such as an accident, injury, or loss.

The Domino Theory (see Figure 1) indicated that the last action leading to
the resulting accident is invariable always taken by the worker. So, when
conducting an accident investigation, the most likely step is to try to
identify what the worker did that led to that outcome. This may be the reason
why traditional safety management tends to focus on the worker for solutions to
the improvement of project safety results.

FIGURE 1—DOMINO EFFECT OR CHAIN REACTION

Traditional Work Site Safety Management

The traditional way safety management is addressed on a construction work
site is for the safety practitioner to do an inspection of the work site as
well as observe the crew engaged in performing their tasks. This is supposed to
lead to identifying hazardous conditions as well as stopping and talking to any
worker engaged in at-risk behavior. The safety practitioner utilizes an
inspection worksheet, which is modeled after the Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) safety regulations. As discussed in our previous article,
"Ensuring
a Safe Construction Work Site" (October 2018), such safety inspections
are an ineffective methodology to identify and change the unsafe behaviors of
the workforce. Nor is it a highly effective way to manage and improve the work
site's safety outcomes.

Since the focus of this inspection is to identify problems, or deficient
worker behavior, the safety practitioner is functioning as the "safety
cop"—identifying problems such as hazardous conditions and/or
"writing workers up." In this scenario, the workforce perceives the
safety practitioner in a negative light. The natural response to this might
very well be resistance to; or ignoring whatever the safety practitioner may
suggest as a solution to the situation. This tends to have a counterproductive
outcome and does not benefit either the worker or the organization.

Construction work is "driven" by the schedule, so the focus tends
to be on production. If the workforce's perception is that production is
important to the project supervision, then anything that they deem will
interfere with that is detrimental to their perceived job security. It is also
possible that the "safe way" suggested by the safety practitioner
might be perceived by the worker as taking more time or possibly be more
difficult to perform. As a result, the suggested "safe way" may not
be supported in the prevailing work situation.

Other means of trying to change the work practices in the field is to
provide workers with some form of training, which primarily involves
regurgitating the OSHA standards. The safety standards are primarily focused on
conditions; therefore, they tend to be useful in ensuring that hazards
involving physical conditions are addressed, but they are far from effective or
even useful in changing behavior. The standards are not particularly useful in
understanding the underlying causation or undesirable action or events.

Organizations may try to manage their workforce's safety performance by
affecting a change in their work practices and/or behavior using OSHA safety
standards information. But, unfortunately, this approach does little to
effectively garner the expected results. Behavior can be impacted (changed)
through operant conditioning. That involves providing sufficient feedback to
change the behavior. The worker may precipitate the adverse event (accident) by
virtue of different factors. These may include a lack of understanding,
deficient information, or improper communication. The worker may make an error
that may be skill-based, rule-based, or knowledge-based; it may possibly
involve an error or omission, commission, timing, or sequencing. It may result
from human dynamics involving the crew or the leader-member exchange (driven by
the supervisor).

The supervisor may inadvertently be the cause of the undesirable outcome
through poor planning, improper risk assessment, inappropriate task assignment,
providing improper tools, setting production goals that are difficult to
achieve, setting conflicting goals or objectives, creating a stressful work
climate, playing favorites, not giving credit when credit is due, or a lack of
fair treatment, to name a few. The operational as well as the organizational
systems may create deficiencies in processes, procedures, or practices, which
would create situations that are error provocative or may degrade the integrity
of defenses created to act as a deterrent to workers making mistakes. The
systems may also influence workers' perceptions, which will ultimately
influence their behavior.

Since the worker-driven discrepancies are easier to identify than those
driven by the systems, the organizations may decide to try to change the
worker's behavior. They may devise the following.

Exclusion designs—these are work processes that make it impossible to
make an error as workers engage in the work.

Preventive designs—these are work processes that make it difficult, but
not impossible, to commit an error.

Fail-safe designs—these are work processes that reduce the consequences
of an error if one is made while engaging in the task, without necessarily
reducing the likelihood of making a mistake.

The organization must devise systems that enable safe performance as well as
systems that sustain those safe behaviors.

Safe Work Execution Process

The safe work execution process is based on scientifically proven research.
Consequence management is based on the operant condition theory resulting from
B.F. Skinner's research. To effectively change the worker's behavior,
the organization should devise a safe work execution (SWE) program as well as
process. This entails carefully analyzing task work activities to identify risk
associated with each key task function (KTF). This involves the following.

Design of a safe work execution program

Analyze typical work activities to identify key task functions.

Educate workers on KTFs.

Create an inspection form based on KTF elements.

Designate staff responsible for SWE inspections.

Perform a comprehensive project risk assessment to identify all potential
risk of injury, the level of exposure of those risks, and the severity of the
potential outcomes for all physical condition as well as all KTF.

Physical, work process, worker action, or hazards evaluation

Degree of exposure determination

Risk mitigation plan (reduce all risk to an acceptable level)

Inform (and train if needed) prior to work execution.

Manage consequences to affect worker behavior.

After having done the risk assessment and identified the safest way to do
that work, the workforce must be informed of this. Any remaining residual risk
must be discussed with the workforce members so that they are aware of it and
know how to effectively deal with it. Also, review the KTFs to ensure everyone
knows the best and safest way to perform the work. Supervision must use the KTF
list to inspect the work to ensure it is being performed properly.

The safe work execution process requires that workers be given feedback on
how they are doing. Anyone found performing the work in an at-risk way must be
given "constructive" feedback. The intent of this feedback is to
discuss the appropriate behavior and encourage workers to change their behavior
to the one that is appropriate and safe. Constructive feedback is provided
until the worker changes their behavior to the accepted method. Feedback can
also be provided to extinguish unsafe or unacceptable behavior.

At times, safe behaviors may not be well supported in the natural work
environment—either consciously or unconsciously. To encourage workers to
continue utilizing the proper safe work techniques, "appreciative" or
reinforcing feedback comes into play. This involves periodically recognizing
workers for continuing to perform their work in the expected fashion. This
feedback helps to motivate workers to continue working in the prescribed manner
and so sustains the "safe" behavior over time. A way to strengthen
the feedback process or increase the influence on changing or sustaining
behavior is through the application of Richard Thaler's "nudge
theory."

Defining Nudges

Generally speaking, a nudge is a prod or touch that may try to attract
one's attention, direct one's focus, or point out something of interest
or importance. The utilization of nudging is a deliberate approach to encourage
suitable thinking that precedes appropriate decision-making, resulting in
proper behavior. This has proven to be significantly more efficient as well as
far more effective than the traditional approach of enforcing policies or
procedure or the leveling of threats or punishment, to name a few. There are no
negative consequences if one fails to heed a nudge; yet, conversely, it does
make it easier for people to make the appropriate choice or decision.

A nudge or nudges enhance the likelihood that an individual will make a
particular choice or engage in a specific activity by changing the environment
so as to trigger automatic cognitive processes that favor the desired outcome.
Central to nudging is the fact that people tend to think as well as make
decisions instinctively rather than logically. Research has shown that humans
are not totally rational beings. At times, an individual's behavior may not
be aligned with their intentions. People have been known to do things that may
not be in their best interest.

Nudging offers clues that enable people to improve their thinking, which
enhances the implementation as well as the management of change. The nudge
theory introduces a subtle means to enhance and support decision-making.

There are a number of different nudge characteristics or techniques. These
include default nudges and social proof heuristics, as well as those that focus
attention or increase the obvious benefit of the preferred alternative or
choice.

Default options are those that will occur if the individual does not do
anything different. Since this takes less effort, people may tend to defer to
such choices.

Social proof heuristics refer to the likelihood of individuals to look to
what others are doing as a guide to it being a safe choice on their
part.

Things that focus attention by pointing out benefits, making selection
easier or more attractive, or highlighting benefits or value tend to become
more salient to the individual, thereby making it more likely that that
option will be chosen.

The Nudge Theory

A more effective way to initiate change in behavior is through the
application of the nudge theory. Though this theory was originally proposed in
"behavioral economics," it can easily be adapted and applied much
more widely for enabling and encouraging change in behavior of individuals,
groups, or organizations. This is a theory that was popularized with the
publication of a book in 2008. Nudge: Improving Decisions about Health,
Wealth, and Happiness was written by Richard Thaler and Cass R. Sunstein.
This book is based on the work done in the 1970s by the Nobel prize-winning
psychologists Daniel Kahneman and Amos Tversky.

Mr. Kahneman and Mr. Tversky's work focused on judgment and
decision-making. They proposed that heuristics are rooted in the idea that a
variety of factors cause people to think and decide instinctively rather than
logically and that this can be anticipated, specified, and predicted. Central
to behavior is decision-making from the choices available at the point in time
that decisions are being made. Thaler and Sunstein equate this concept to
"nudges." The "nudge" process facilitates better
understanding as well as management of the "heuristic" influences on
human decision-making and behavior, which is central to fostering change in
people.

The universal application of the nudge theory was launched by a news article
in 2009 about a simple but effective solution to a chronic maintenance and
hygiene problem in the men's bathrooms at Amsterdam's Schiphol Airport.
They installed small fly-shaped stickers in the men's urinals so that men
had something to aim at. This reduced spillage by over 80 percent. The nudge
theory is a flexible change-management concept for the following.

Understanding how people think, make decisions, and behave

Enabling people to improve their thinking process and resulting
decisions

Managing change that influences and transforms behavior

Identifying, altering, or removing existing counterproductive influences
on people

Organizations soon found that nudges are far more effective than any signage
that tries to inform people or threatens them with fines if they choose to
ignore the information provided by the signs. Below is a comparative chart of
traditional interventions compared to those reflecting nudge thinking.

Traditional Interventions

Direct, obvious

Rules, guidelines

Policing, enforcement

Instruction, direction

Imposed choices

Deadlines

Pressure

Tell, talk down to

Selective information

Nudge Interventions

Indirect, subtle

Enablement, facilitation

Assistance, support

Educate, inform

Freedom to choose

Open-ended

No pressure

Discuss, share

Openess, nothing withheld

The nudge theory strives to improve the understanding as well as the
management of the heuristic influences on human behavior. Central to behavior
is decision-making from the known choices available at that point in time. By
"designing" the choices, decisions are influenced, and behavior is
channeled to an appropriate level. The designing of choices must be congruent
with the way people actually think, which is instinctive rather than rational.
As a result, nudge theory is a dramatically different approach to managing
change in people through indirect means and methods as opposed to the
traditional direct approach of instruction, direction, enforcement, or
punishment. Those organizations that have implemented "nudge"
thinking in their operations have found that it dramatically affected thinking
about and methods used for motivating and changing people's choices,
decisions, or actions.

Application of Nudging

Nudging is a method of influencing people to make the appropriate choices.
There are many examples of this. In marketing, the use of nudges such as
"most popular" or "best-selling" product indicates that
many people have determined the value or usefulness of it and may nudge another
person's choice to also select that particular product. One marketer's
advice to trainees: "Since 95 percent of people are imitators, and only 5
percent are initiators, people are more likely to be persuaded by the actions
of other than by any proof we may provide."

A researcher placed a number (four to six) of his assistants on busy
sidewalks in New York City, asking them to stare at an empty spot in the sky or
a tall building, while a third person observed the behavior of the people
walking by. The average number of people pausing to look up was anywhere from
80 percent to 90 percent. The action of the researchers nudged the curiosity of
the people to stop and find out what was causing them to stare up.

Exposure and Work Practices

Injuries from construction accidents are costly in terms of human suffering
and operational losses. There are fallacies at play in the management of safety
in construction. One of these is the belief that the utilization of OSHA
standards in training workers will result in fewer accidents. Underlying this
is the belief that rational people do not want to get hurt and that providing
them with the knowledge of how to avoid getting hurt will change their at-risk
behavior.

But, it is a proven fact that humans may perceive risk in a skewed sense.
This understanding of risk is reinforced daily in the work activity of people
by small and regular rewards. People performing their daily tasks usually find
ways to make it easier or take less time or effort, which may involve taking
some risk with no adverse effect. Over time, these benefits diminish the
treatment of the risks and eventually normalize at-risk behavior.

This understanding highlights the reason why workers underestimate risks
associated with the work, their exposure to hazards, or how their at-risk
behavior is incentivized by the lack of adverse outcomes. Generally, this
action increases productivity, which is recognized by the supervisor, thereby
reinforcing the risk-taking until an accident occurs. This then draws attention
to the areas where faulty risk perception had led to negative outcomes. These
low-frequency/high-consequence events start the reactive process of informing
all the workers on how to avoid such accidents in the future by way of writing
procedures, putting up signage, or providing training materials.

A significant example of this involves the use of seatbelts in automobiles.
When wearing seatbelts was optional, a survey found that less than 20 percent
of drivers were using them. Drivers engaged in this behavior in spite of the
fact that they were aware of the serious number of injuries and fatalities that
resulted from traffic accidents. This highlighted the perceived expected daily
benefit (save time, less discomfort, less wrinkled clothing, etc.) outweighing
the rare negative consequence of an accident, injury, etc. See
"Normalization of Performance Deviations" (August 2014). To
ensure that drivers engaged in the appropriate behavior, the wearing of
seatbelts had to be made mandatory.

Nudges are utilized by many astute organizations. Some nudges are obvious,
while others are subtle. In hospitals or clinics, colored lines on the floor
guide patients to the "right" departments. This is an example of a
subtle nudge. In supermarkets, certain items are placed in front of the
entrance, at the end of aisles, or on eye-level shelves to enhance their
purchase. In movie theaters during the previews, multiple clips of soda and
popcorn are shown to (nudge) encourage people to buy some. Organizations have
found that placing refuse containers in prominent locations and in sufficient
numbers reduces littering more effectively than signs threatening fines. Nudges
are also common in advertising and marketing.

The nudge theory is mainly concerned with the design of choices, which
influences the decisions people make. In this respect, nudge theory is a
different and more sophisticated approach to enabling people to change than
traditional methods of training, instruction, enforcement, rewards, and/or
punishment. The use of nudge theory is based on indirect encouragement and
enablement. Nudging avoids direct instruction or enforcement. Central to the
nudge concept is that people can be guided to think appropriately to make
better decisions by being offered choices that have been designed to enable
"better" outcomes.

Application of Nudging in Safety Management

Application of behavioral theory to safety has been around for over 40
years. Many organizations have implemented some form of it, with varying
degrees of success. The underlying theory of this process is operant
conditioning. A practical means of accomplishing this is by using the SWE
process discussed in the
October 2018 IRMI.com article. To make this process more effective,
organizations must add the nudging theory to their safety management program as
well as process.

Nudging increases the effectiveness of positive reinforcement (consequence
management) of behavior by hinting and/or offering suggestions, which influence
motivation in the decision-making process of individuals. Research has shown
that nudging is often more effective than the traditional means for garnering
safe behavior through training, inspections, incentives, or punishment. Nudging
is especially successful in fostering safe behavior if the individual is
unaware that their thought process, decisions, and behavior are being
influenced by external forces.

Conclusion

Nudging has the potential to more effectively change behavior and improve
safety results where regulation and enforcement have often failed, and
behavior-based safety has had less than universal stellar results. The
application of nudging in the management of safety by way of changing worker
behavior has had some consequential success in the United Kingdom, Canada, and
Australia. Nudging, the structuring of choice and influencing decision-making,
is an additional tool for safety managers to use to change worker behavior. The
real success of nudging will materialize when the nudge is indirect or becomes
second nature.

Some innovative organizations have successfully applied nudging. But, for
the construction industry to utilize it universally, some research will have to
be conducted to highlight its successes.

Opinions expressed in Expert Commentary articles are those of the author and are not necessarily held by the author's employer or IRMI. Expert Commentary articles and other IRMI Online content do not purport to provide legal, accounting, or other professional advice or opinion. If such advice is needed, consult with your attorney, accountant, or other qualified adviser.

Like This Article?

IRMI Update

Dive into thought-provoking industry commentary every other week,
including links to free articles from industry experts. Discover practical
risk management tips, insight on important case law and be the first to
receive important news regarding IRMI products and events.